Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add iliaal/whetstone --skill ia-document-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iliaal/whetstoneWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-document-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-document-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-document-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-document-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iliaal/whetstone/ia-document-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00059 | $0.02022 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00809 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00404 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00202 |
Grade A, and why
ia-document-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 24d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to document-review — 2 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 159 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Document Review
Improve brainstorm or plan documents through structured review.
Working rules
- Assess before editing, preserve implementation-relevant constraints and rationale, and distinguish minor edits from substantive decisions.
- A review-only request authorizes findings, not file edits. Apply changes only when the user has requested editing or approved the proposed changes; do not ask again for changes already authorized.
Step 1: Get the Document
If a document path is provided: Read it, then proceed to Step 2.
If no document is specified: Ask which document to review (via AskUserQuestion in Claude Code, request_user_input in Codex, or numbered options in chat as the fallback), or look for the most recent brainstorm/plan in docs/brainstorms/ or docs/plans/.
Step 2: Assess
Read through the document and ask:
- What is unclear?
- What is unnecessary?
- What decision is being avoided?
- What assumptions are unstated?
- Where could scope accidentally expand?
- Is this technically feasible with the current architecture?
- Is what it says about the current system true? Follow each checkable claim (file paths, function, command, or config names, endpoints, cited PRs or issues, numbers, behavior implied by verbs like "retries") to its source, reading only. On a long document, sample and state the coverage.
- Are there security implications in what's proposed?
These questions surface issues. Note findings without fixing yet.
Step 3: Activate Review Lenses
Based on the document's content, activate specialized review perspectives. Scan for signals and apply matching lenses:
| Lens | Signals | What it checks |
|---|---|---|
| Product | User-facing features, customer language, market claims, scope decisions | Problem framing, value proposition clarity, whether scope matches stated goals |
| Design | UI/UX references, user flows, wireframes, interaction descriptions | Flow completeness, interaction gaps, accessibility considerations |
| Security | Auth/authorization, API endpoints, PII, payments, tokens, encryption | Auth model gaps, data exposure risks, missing threat considerations |
| Scope guardian | Multiple priority tiers (P0/P1/P2), large requirement count (>8), stretch goals | Scope creep, premature abstractions, features disguised as requirements |
| Adversarial | >5 distinct requirements, explicit architectural decisions, high-stakes domains | Unstated assumptions, optimistic estimates, single points of failure, missing failure modes |
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 24d ago Changed c0cb6dd38257
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines · +8 tokens per session 4366425b955e
- 1mo ago Changed 4e9a03412fbe
- 1mo ago Changed 1763a78e5de7
- 1mo ago Changed · -3 lines a5ed6ffc2abb
- 1mo ago First seen · 160 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 4bd757ae5b35
ia-document-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository iliaal/whetstone (35 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 2,022 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to document-review, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-review
Comprehensive PR review across six dimensions — cost impact, environment drift, ownership gaps, SOC 2 compliance, deprecated API / version hygiene, and rollback feasibility. Each mode inspects the diff and current file state, reports findings with severity, and recommends concrete fixes. Use when preparing a PR for…
code-review
Review pull requests to this repo (a Claude Code / Copilot / Cursor platform-engineering skill plugin) for technical accuracy, security posture, structural consistency with existing domains, and completeness. Use this for any PR touching commands/, references/, examples/, skills/platform-skills/SKILL.md, or the plugin…
rubber-ducky
Use when you've planned a non-trivial change and are about to implement it, finished a complex or multi-file piece of work, just wrote tests, or are stuck on repeated failures or unexpected results — and any time the user says "rubber duck this", "rubber ducky", "get a second opinion", "sanity-check my plan", "poke…
superreview
Review a change set or explicit project scope for intent, correctness, safety, reuse, and maintainability; independently validate findings and produce one report without applying fixes.
pr-sweep
Use when you want to sweep all open pull requests across all repos, triage their status, run code reviews on unreviewed PRs, merge what's ready, fix quick blockers, and produce a full status report. Trigger when the user says "check my PRs", "close out open PRs", "what's the status of my PRs", "sweep my PRs", "PR…
brewcode-review
Review Brewcode product hooks, scripts, skills, agents, templates, and native compatibility contracts using the shared report-only superreview workflow.